Positioning exercises in improving the quality of magnetic-controlled capsule endoscopy.

BACKGROUND: Good gastric preparation is indispensable for Magnetic-controlled Capsule Endoscopy (MCE) examination, but there is no consensus yet. We aim to explore the clinical application value of positioning exercises in improving the quality of MCE examination. METHODS: Clinical data of 326 patients who underwent MCE examination from January 2020 to December 2023 were collected. The included patients were divided into two groups: the conventional medication preparation group (CMP group, accepted mucosal cleansing medication only) and the positioning exercises group (PE group, accepted mucosal cleansing medication plus positioning exercises). A comparison was made between the two groups in terms of gastric cavity cleanliness score, visibility score, and detection rate of positive lesions. RESULTS: The examination time was (21.29 ± 5.82) minutes in the PE group and (30.54 ± 6.37) minutes in the CMP group, showing a significant difference between the two groups (P < 0.001). The total cleanliness score and visibility score in the CMP group were 15.89 ± 2.82 and 10.93 ± 2.12, respectively. In contrast, the total cleanliness score and visibility score in the PE group were 19.52 ± 2.26 and 15.09 ± 2.31, respectively. The PE group showed significantly better cleanliness scores and visibility scores in all six anatomical regions compared to the CMP group (All P < 0.001). However, there was no significant difference in the detection rate of positive lesions between the two groups (All P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Positioning exercises before MCE examination can improve the quality of gastric mucosal images and reduce the duration of the examination for patients.

Evaluation of the efficacy of polyethylene glycol in combination with different doses of linaclotide in a fractionated bowel preparation for colonoscopy: a prospective randomized controlled study.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: The ideal bowel cleansing program still needs to be explored. The aim was to compare the bowel cleansing effect and patient tolerance of low-dose polyethylene glycol (PEG) combined with different doses of linaclotide in fractionated bowel preparation. METHODS: The subjects were randomly assigned to the 3LPEG group, 2LPEG + 2L group, or 2LPEG + L group. The primary outcome was to use the Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale (OBPS) to evaluate the efficacy of bowel cleansing, and the secondary outcomes were the detection rate of adenomas and polyps, adverse reactions, tolerance, and defecation dynamics; subsets of patients with chronic constipation and irritable bowel syndrome were also analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 753 patients were randomly assigned. In ITT analysis, the success of preparation of the 2LPEG + 2L group was better than that of the 2LPEG + L group or the 3LPEG group (92.0% vs. 82.3% vs. 82.1%; P = 0.002). Compared with the 3LPEG group, the 2LPEG + L group showed similar but non-inferior results (82.3% vs. 82.1%, P > 0.05). The 2LPEG + 2L group was similar to the 2LPEG + L group in terms of adverse reaction, tolerance, willingness to reuse, and sleep quality, but both were superior to the 3LPEG group. In a subgroup analysis of chronic constipation, the 2LPEG + 2L group had the best cleansing effect on the right colon and mid colon, while in the subgroup analysis of irritable bowel syndrome, the tolerance was better in the 2LPEG + 2L group and the 2LPEG + L group than the 3LPEG group. CONCLUSIONS: 2LPEG + 2L is a feasible bowel preparation regimen.

Impact of mechanical bowel preparation on the gut microbiome of patients undergoing left-sided colorectal cancer surgery: randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative complications after colorectal cancer surgery have been linked to the gut microbiome. However, the impact of mechanical bowel preparation using oral preparation agents or rectal enema on postoperative infections remains poorly understood. This study aimed to compare the impact of oral preparation and rectal enema on the gut microbiome and postoperative complications. METHODS: This open-label pilot RCT was conducted at the National Cancer Institute, Vilnius, Lithuania. Patients with left-side colorectal cancer scheduled for elective resection with primary anastomosis were randomized 1 : 1 to preoperative mechanical bowel preparation with either oral preparation or rectal enema. Stool samples were collected before surgery, and on postoperative day 6 and 30 for 16S rRNA gene sequencing analysis. The primary outcome was difference in ß-diversity between groups on postoperative day 6. RESULTS: Forty participants were randomized to oral preparation (20) or rectal enema (20). The two groups had similar changes in microbiome composition, and there was no difference in ß-diversity on postoperative day 6. Postoperative infections occurred in 12 patients (32%), without differences between the study groups. Patients with infections had an increased abundance of bacteria from the Actinomycetaceae family, Actinomyces genus, Sutterella uncultured species, and Enterococcus faecalis species. CONCLUSION: Mechanical bowel preparation with oral preparation or rectal enema resulted in similar dysbiosis. Patients who experienced postoperative infections exhibited distinct gut microbiome compositions on postoperative day 6, characterized by an increased abundance of bacteria from the Actinomycetaceae family, Actinomyces genus, Sutterella uncultured species, and Enterococcus faecalis species. REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04013841 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

Oral sulfate solution versus polyethylene glycol for bowel preparation before colonoscopy, meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomized clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to compare oral sulfate solution (OSS) with polyethylene glycol (PEG) for bowel preparation before colonoscopy. METHODS: A literature search was performed on PubMed, Ovid, and Cochrane Databases for randomized clinical trials (RCT) comparing OSS with PEG for bowel preparation before colonoscopy. The last search was performed on 22 August 2023. The primary outcome was the quality of bowel preparation. The outcomes were compared by meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis (TSA). RESULTS: A total of 14 RCTs with 4526 patients were included. OSS was comparable with PEG regarding adequate bowel preparation [P = 0.16, odds ratio (OR) = 1.19, 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.93, 1.51], I2 = 0%]. However, OSS showed obvious priority in excellent bowel preparation (P < 0.001, OR = 1.62, 95% CI [1.27, 2.05], I2 = 0%) and total Boston bowel preparation scale (BBPS) [P = 0.02, weighted mean difference (WMD) = 0.27, 95% CI [0.05, 0.50], I2 = 84%]. Additionally, the detection rate of polyps (P = 0.001, OR = 1.44, 95% CI [1.15, 1.80], I2 = 0%) and adenoma (P = 0.007, OR = 1.22, 95% CI [1.06, 1.42], I2 = 0%) was significantly higher in the OSS group. The two groups showed comparable incidence of adverse events except for a higher incidence of dizziness (P = 0.02, OR = 1.74, 95% CI [1.08, 2.83], I2 = 11%) was indicated in the OSS group. Moreover, OSS was associated with a higher satisfaction score (P = 0.02, WMD = 0.62, 95% CI [0.09, 1.15], I2 = 70%). In the TSA, the cumulative Z-curve crossed both the conventional boundary and trial sequential monitoring boundary and the required information size has been reached for excellent bowel preparation and total BBPS. CONCLUSION: The current data demonstrated that OSS was associated with better quality of bowel preparation. More clinical trials are still needed to confirm other outcomes.

Acute Gastropathy Associated with Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy.

Background/Aims: Utilization of low-volume preparation agents is crucial to improve patient willingness to undergo repeat colonoscopies. However, gastric safety data on preparation agents are limited. This study evaluated the acute gastropathy associated with bowel preparation agents. Methods: This retrospective study enrolled healthy subjects who underwent both esophagogastroduodenoscopy and colonoscopy screening. Baseline patient characteristics, bowel preparation success, acute gastropathy, and polyp and adenoma detection rates were evaluated for 1 L polyethylene glycol with ascorbic acid (1 L PEG/Asc) and oral sulfate tablet (OST) groups. Results: Comparison of the OST group (n=2,463) with the 1 L PEG/Asc group (n=2,060) revealed that the rates of successful cleansing and high-quality cleansing were similar between the two groups. Polyp and adenoma detection rates were significantly higher in the OST group than in the 1 L PEG/Asc group (p<0.001 and p=0.013), while the incidence of acute gastric mucosal lesion-like blood stain/clot, erosions at greater curvature side of antrum/body, multiple erosions, and overlying mucosal erythema or edema were all significantly higher in the OST group than in the 1 L PEG/Asc group (all p<0.001). Additionally, high and indeterminate probability scores of preparation agent-induced gastropathy (p=0.001) and mean Lanza scores were significantly higher in the OST group than in the 1 L PEG/Asc group (1.3 vs. 0.4, p<0.001). Conclusions: Compared with 1 L PEG/Asc, OSTs were significantly associated with acute gastropathy during bowel preparation, thus requiring careful consideration from physicians for the simultaneous screening of EGD and colonoscopy.

Online Educational Module Improves Knowledge of Nurses on Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy.

The effectiveness of colonoscopy is limited by the adequacy of bowel preparation. Nurses are essential in providing bowel cleansing agents and instructions for hospitalized patients before colonoscopy. This study aims to assess and improve the knowledge of nurses on bowel preparation for inpatient colonoscopy. Participants were asked to complete the survey before and after completing an educational module. The module and survey questions were placed in the NetLearning environment of the hospital intranet. A minimum post-test score of 80% was required to pass the course. A total of 1,107 nurses participated in the survey. Overall, the average score improved from 87% to 93% after the module (p < .0495). Knowledge of the different ways of consuming bowel cleansing agents improved from 54.3% to 83.6% (p = .0001). Only 56.2% of nurses knew how to carry out a split-dose bowel preparation regimen, which increased to 80.1% after the educational module (p = .0001). Nurses' knowledge about the different ways of consuming bowel cleansing agents before colonoscopy and the split-dose regimen is inadequate. A simple online educational module significantly improved the knowledge of nurses on bowel preparation for colonoscopy.

Sennoside A+B Is as Effective as Polyethylene Glycol in Preparation for Small Intestine Capsule Endoscopy.

BACKGROUND/AIMS:  We aimed to compare the effectiveness of the polyethylene glycol (PEG) and sennoside A+B regimens after clear fluid diet and fasting in bowel preperation of capsule endoscopy. MATERIALS AND METHODS:  In this retrospective single-center study, patients who were consecutively examined with small bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE) between May 2010 and March 2023 were evaluated. Patients who underwent PEG 4 L and sennoside A+B calcium 250 mL for small bowel preparation were assigned. The quality of the small bowel cleaning and the diagnostic yield in detecting of small bowel lesions were compared. RESULTS:  Two hundred forty-two patients who underwent SBCE for various indications (PEG 74.4%, sennoside A+B 25.6%) were included in the study. The mean proximal small bowel cleaning scores was 1.97 ± 0.77 for PEG and 1.98 ± 0.04 (P = .83) for sennoside A+B; the mid small bowel cleaning scores was 1.76 ± 0.84 for PEG and 1.59 ± 0.05 (P = .108) for sennoside A+B; the mean distal small bowel cleaning scores was 1.27 ± 0.08 for PEG and 1.3 ± 0.54 (P = .805) for sennoside A+B; and the total small bowel cleaning scores was 1.66 ± 0.06 and 1.62 ± 0.04 (P = .622) for PEG and sennoside A+B, respectively. There were no significant differences regarding small bowel cleaning scores both segmentally and totally. At the same time, the diagnostic value of SBCE was similar in both groups. CONCLUSION:  The effectiveness of sennoside A+B in SBCE preparation is similar to that of PEG and can be used in intestinal cleansing.

The Efficacy of Chemical Bowel Preparation Against Incisional Surgical Site Infection in Colorectal Cancer Surgery: A Propensity Score Matching Study.

BACKGROUND/AIM: In colorectal cancer surgery, the risk of surgical site infection (SSI) is relatively high. The development of SSI is related to longer and costlier hospitalization and reduced quality of life; therefore, perioperative prevention of SSI is important. Chemical bowel preparation (CBP) combined with mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) may be more effective in preventing surgical site infection (SSI) compared to MBP alone. Since May 2021, we have been administering oral kanamycin and metronidazole as CBP, in addition to MBP, as a preoperative treatment for colorectal cancer surgery on the day before surgery. In this study, we investigated the clinical value of CBP in addition to MBP in colorectal cancer surgery using propensity score matching (PSM). PATIENTS AND METHODS: From January 2017 to December 2021, 136 consecutive patients underwent radical surgery for sigmoid colon and rectal cancer at the Osaka Metropolitan University Hospital. Patients were divided into two groups: CBP and N-CBP. In the N-CBP group, we performed only preoperative MBP, whereas in the CBP group, we performed preoperative CBP in addition to MBP. We retrospectively analyzed this relationship with PSM. RESULTS: Overall, 46 patients underwent preoperative CBP and MBP, 90 patients underwent preoperative MBP only. PSM was performed between the CBP and N-CBP groups based on the following ten factors: age, sex, diabetes mellitus, preoperative therapy, Glasgow Prognostic Score (GPS), operative time, blood loss, stoma, and pathological stage. After PSM, univariate and multivariate analyses of the relationship between SSI and clinicopathological factors were performed. Univariate analysis showed that age and CBP were correlated with the rate of SSI (p=0.039 and p=0.017, respectively), whereas sex was relatively correlated with the rate of SSI (p=0.066). The multivariate analysis of significant factors identified age of 75 or more and non-CBP as an independent risk factor for incisional SSI (HR=9.5; p=0.049 and HR=5.4×e-8; p=0.020). CONCLUSION: Preoperative CBP in addition to MBP was effective in preventing incisional SSI during colorectal cancer surgery.

A study on the related influencing factors of the quality of bowel preparation and the compliance of middle-aged and elderly patients for colonoscopy.

OBJECTIVE: Quality of bowel preparation and patient compliance are among the most important indicators to assess the quality of colonoscopy. To investigate the independent factors associated with the quality of bowel preparation in subjects undergoing colonoscopy and its impact on compliance. METHODS: A total of 329 patient records were collected and were divided into an adequate bowel preparation group (272 cases) and an inadequate bowel preparation group (57 cases), or a compliant group (260 cases) and a non-compliant group (69 cases), based on bowel preparation quality or compliance. The quality of bowel preparation is evaluated using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale. The comfort level of subjects during bowel preparation is assessed using the Kolcaba General Comfort Questionnaire (GCQ). Subjects' compliance was assessed according to a self-developed compliance questionnaire. Prediction analyses were conducted to identify factors associated with the quality of bowel preparation and compliance. RESULTS: Age, bowel preparation duration, history of bowel inadequacy, and laxative dosage showed statistical differences between the adequate and inadequate bowel preparation groups (p < 0.05). Age, bowel preparation duration, and laxative dosage were independent influencing factors of bowel preparation quality. Correlation analysis showed that GCQ scores were significantly negatively correlated with age, bowel preparation duration, laxative dose, defecation frequency, and colonoscopy duration (r < 0, p < 0.05), and positively correlated with sleep duration (r > 0, p < 0.05). In addition, age, gender, bowel preparation duration, and laxative dosage showed statistical differences between the compliant and non-compliant groups (p < 0.05). Logistic regression analysis revealed that age, bowel preparation duration, and laxative dosage were independent influencing factors of bowel preparation compliance. Age and bowel preparation duration were independent influencing factors for bowel preparation adequacy and compliance. CONCLUSIONS: Age, bowel preparation duration, and laxative dosage are independent influencing factors for bowel preparation adequacy and compliance among patients undergoing colonoscopy at the First Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University. It is recommended that a one-day low-residue diet combined with a 2000 mL laxative dosage be used as the bowel preparation protocol for the general colonoscopy population.

A randomized prospective study comparing the effect of low-volume bowel preparations for colonoscopy preparation in China.

AIM: To evaluate the effect of sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate (SPMC) and 3 L split-dose polyethylene glycol (PEG) with or without dimethicone on bowel preparation before colonoscopy. METHODS: In this multicenter, prospective, randomized, controlled study conducted from April 2021 to December 2021, consecutive adult patients scheduled for colonoscopy were prospectively randomized into four groups: SPMC, SPMC plus dimethicone, 3 L PEG, and 3 L PEG plus dimethicone. Primary endpoint was colon cleansing based on Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS). Secondary endpoints were bubble score, time to cecal intubation, adenoma detection rate (ADR), patient safety and compliance, and adverse events. RESULTS: We enrolled 223 and 291 patients in SPMC and 3 L PEG group, respectively. The proportion with acceptable bowel cleansing, total BBPS score and cecal intubation time were similar in all four subgroups (p > 0.05). Patient-reported acceptability and tolerability was significantly greater in SPMC than 3 L PEG group (p < 0.001); adverse events were significantly lower in SPMC than latter group (p < 0.001). ADR in both groups was greater than 30%. CONCLUSION: SPMC had significantly higher acceptability and tolerability than 3 L PEG, however, was similar in terms of bowel-cleansing effect and cecal intubation time and hence can be used before colonoscopy preparation.

Efficacy of linaclotide in combination with polyethylene glycol for bowel preparation in Chinese patients undergoing colonoscopy polypectomy: protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Adequate bowel preparation is essential for successful colonoscopy and polypectomy procedures. However, a significant proportion of patients still exhibit suboptimal bowel preparation, ranging from 18% to 35%. The effectiveness of bowel preparation agents can be hampered by volume and taste, adversely affecting patient compliance and tolerance. Therefore, exploring strategies to minimise laxative volume and improve patient tolerance and adherence is imperative to ensure optimal bowel preparation quality. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study is a two-arm, single-blinded, parallel-group randomised controlled trial designed to compare the efficacy of 2 L polyethylene glycol (PEG) combined with linaclotide with 4 L PEG in bowel cleansing. A total of 422 participants will be randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to either the intervention group (2 L PEG combined with 580 µg linaclotide) or the control group (4 L PEG). The primary outcome measure is bowel cleansing efficacy, which is assessed using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale. Secondary outcomes include evaluating the tolerability and safety of the bowel preparation regimens, bowel diary assessments, postpolypectomy complications (such as bleeding and perforation) and the size and number of removed polyps. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has received approval from the Clinical Research Ethics Committee of The First Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine. The findings of this trial will serve as a valuable resource for clinicians and patients undergoing colonoscopy polypectomy by guiding the selection of appropriate bowel preparation regimens. Study findings will be disseminated to participants, presented at professional society meetings, and published in peer-reviewed journals. This trial was registered on the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry with registration number ChiCTR2300075410.

Strategies to Improve Colonoscopy Preparation in Inflammatory Bowel Disease. A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis of Randomized Trials.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Colonoscopy has a vital role in the diagnosis of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), as well as in the estimation of disease severity, monitoring response to therapy, and surveillance for neoplasia. We performed a systematic review of randomised trials of various bowel preparations for colonoscopy in IBD. METHODS: We searched various electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL) for studies reporting about the use of various strategies to improve colonoscopy preparation in IBD. We included only randomized clinical trials (RCTs). A network meta-analysis was done using a frequentist approach to compare the effectiveness of various bowel preparations. The risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane risk of bias tool 2.0. Other outcome parameters like compliance, tolerance, acceptance, and adverse effects were assessed qualitatively. RESULTS: Seven RCTs reporting about 960 patients were included. On comparison with 4 liter (L) of poliethylen glycol (PEG), oral sulfate solution (OR=1.1, 95%CI: 0.65-1.86); PEG2L/Ascorbate (OR=0.98, 95%CI: 0.65-1.48); PEG1L (OR=1, 95%CI: 0.55-1.81); PEG2L plus bisacodyl (OR=1.08, 95%CI: 0.71-1.65); PEG4L plus simethicone (OR=1, 95%CI: 0.67-1.50); PEG/ sodium picosulfate and magnesium citrate (SPMC) 1.5L (OR=0.99, 95%CI: 0.55-1.78); SPMC 2L (OR=1.09, 95%CI: 0.61-1.97) had similar effectiveness. Three RCTs reported compliance, five RCTs reported tolerance, two studies reported patient acceptance and five RCTs reported data on the willingness of patients to repeat the procedure in the future. Low-volume preparations had better compliance, tolerance, acceptance, and willingness to repeat. No difference in additional outcomes like change in disease activity after colonoscopy, procedure-related outcomes after colonoscopy like cecal intubation rate, and change in electrolyte levels were found. CONCLUSION: Various bowel preparations had similar effectiveness in respect to colonoscopy preparation in IBD patients. Low-volume preparations have better compliance, tolerance, and acceptance. The systematic review was limited by a small number of included RCTs.

Impact of inadequate bowel cleansing in sigmoidoscopy screening.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Long-time follow-up of sigmoidoscopy screening trials has shown reduced incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer (CRC), but inadequate bowel cleansing may hamper efficacy. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of bowel cleansing quality in sigmoidoscopy screening. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Individuals 50 to 74 years old who had a screening sigmoidoscopy in a population-based Norwegian, randomized trial between 2012 and 2019, were included in this cross-sectional study. The bowel cleansing quality was categorised as excellent, good, partly poor, or poor. The effect of bowel cleansing quality on adenoma detection rate (ADR) and referral to colonoscopy was evaluated by fitting multivariable logistic regression models. RESULTS: 35,710 individuals were included. The bowel cleansing at sigmoidoscopy was excellent in 20,934 (58.6%) individuals, good in 6580 (18.4%), partly poor in 7097 (19.9%) and poor in 1099 (3.1%). The corresponding ADRs were 17.0%, 16.6%, 14.5%, and 13.0%. Compared to participants with excellent bowel cleansing, those with poor bowel cleansing had an odds ratio for adenoma detection of 0.66 (95% confidence interval 0.55-0.79). We found substantial differences in the assessment of bowel cleansing quality among endoscopists. CONCLUSIONS: Inadequate bowel cleansing reduces the efficacy of sigmoidoscopy screening, by lowering ADR. A validated rating scale and improved bowel preparation are needed to make sigmoidoscopy an appropriate screening method.Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01538550).

Improving Inpatient Colonoscopy Bowel Preparation: A Successful Quality Improvement Project.

Inadequate inpatient bowel preparation can lead to repeat procedures, prolonged hospital stays, and increased financial burden. In this quality improvement project, the authors developed an electronic medical record (EMR)-based order set with precise instructions and anticipatory guidance for inpatient bowel preparation before colonoscopy. The current study is a nonrandomized intervention study. The authors compared 2 groups: an intervention group using a newly developed, consensus-based, standardized EMR bowel preparation order set and a control group using previously existing EMR bowel preparation orders. Bowel preparation outcomes were followed over the course of 16 months. The aim was to improve inpatient colonoscopy bowel preparation, as evaluated by the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale, procedure delays, and length of hospital stay. We additionally evaluated the groups' demographics and patient-level factors. A total of 459 inpatient colonoscopies were evaluated over a 16-month period. The intervention group consisted of 227 inpatient colonoscopies, while the control group consisted of 232. The intervention group showed superior Boston Bowel Preparation Scale score and decreased length of hospital stay. The number of adequate bowel preparations increased in the intervention group when compared to the control group from 77% to 86%. The creation of an EMR-based order set is a low-cost and sustainable action that can be easily implemented throughout a hospital system.

Shortening Oral Simethicone-to-Colonoscopy Interval Increases Bowel Preparation Quality.

BACKGROUND Simethicone can improve bowel preparation quality, but the optimal timing of oral simethicone before colonoscopy has not been determined. This study aimed to explore the effect of the time interval between oral simethicone and the start of colonoscopy (S-C) on bowel preparation quality. MATERIAL AND METHODS A total of 364 patients undergoing colonoscopy at our department from August 1, 2021 to November 30, 2021 were included in the training cohort, and 420 consecutive patients from December 15, 2021 to January 31, 2022 comprised the validation cohort. They were classified into short and long S-C groups according to the median S-C. Bowel preparation quality evaluated by the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale was compared between the 2 groups. Logistic regression analyses were performed to explore the correlation between S-C and bowel preparation quality, and we explored the effect of run-way time and time of starting colonoscopy on bowel preparation quality. RESULTS In the training cohort, 182 and 182 patients were classified into the short and long S-C groups, respectively; in the validation cohort, 210 and 210 patients were classified into the 2 groups, respectively. In the 2 cohorts, the short S-C group had a significantly higher rate of adequate/excellent bowel preparation than the long S-C group. Logistic regression analyses showed that shorter S-C, shorter run-way time, and colonoscopy in the morning were all correlated with adequate/excellent bowel preparation. CONCLUSIONS Bowel preparation quality may be affected by S-C, run-way time, and time of starting colonoscopy. S-C shortening should be given equal importance as run-way time shortening.

[Bowel preparation before colorectal surgery].

High quality bowel preparation is a necessary part of preoperative preparation for colorectal surgery and one of the keys to the success of surgery, which directly affects the quality of intraoperative procedures and postoperative recovery of patients. Conventional intestinal preparation mainly includes three aspects: preoperative dietary control, intestinal cleansing and prophylactic use of antibiotics. With the development of evidence-based medicine, the concepts and methods of bowel preparation have also changed. Long fasting is no longer advocated before surgery, and the traditional mechanical bowel preparation are also challenged. This article summarizes the application and research progress of different intestinal preparation methods before colorectal surgery, aiming to provide reference for clinical work of colorectal surgeons.

Transvaginal ultrasound with bowel preparation versus transvaginal ultrasound with bowel preparation and water contrast for diagnosing Recto-Sigmoid endometriosis. A systematic review and Meta-Analysis.

Transvaginal ultrasound is effective in diagnosing endometriosis involving the rectosigmoid bowel. Some authors suggest enhanced detection of rectosigmoid involvement with bowel preparation. Conversely, conflicting views argue that bowel preparation may not improve diagnostic precision, yielding similar results to rectal water contrast. No existing meta-analysis compares these approaches. Our study aims to conduct a meta-analysis to evaluate the diagnostic performance of transvaginal ultrasound with bowel preparation, with and without rectal water contrast. Studies published between 2000 and 2023 were searched in PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane and Web of Science. From 561 citations, we selected nine studies to include in this meta-analysis. The study quality was assessed using QUADAS-2 (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2). The mean prevalence of endometriosis rectosigmoid was 43.6% (range 17,56-76,66%) in the group with bowel preparation and 64,80% (50,0-83,60%) for the group with bowel preparation and rectal water contrast. Pooled sensitivity and specificity were 93% and 94% for bowel preparation and 92% and 95% and for bowel preparation with water contrast. We conclude that, there was no significant difference between performing transvaginal ultrasound with intestinal preparation with and without water contrast. In clinical practice, the absence of a significant difference between these methods should be taken into account when making recommendations.

Efficacy of Polyethylene Glycol Electrolyte Powder Combined With Linaclotide for Colon Cleansing in Patients With Chronic Constipation Undergoing Colonoscopy: A Multicenter, Single-Blinded, Randomized Controlled Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Constipation is an independent risk factor for poor bowel preparation. This study aimed to evaluate the bowel cleansing efficacy and safety of polyethylene glycol (PEG) combined with linaclotide (lin) for colonoscopy in patients with chronic constipation (CC). METHODS: This single-blinded, randomized, controlled, and multicenter study was conducted from July 2021 to December 2022 at 7 hospitals. Patients with CC who underwent colonoscopies were enrolled and randomly assigned to 4 groups with split-PEG regimens: 4L-PEG group, 4L-PEG+1d-Lin group, 3L-PEG+1d-Lin group, and 3L-PEG+3d-Lin group. The primary outcome was rates of adequate bowel preparation, defined as a total BBPS score ≥6 and a score ≥2 for each segment. Secondary outcomes were adverse effects, sleep quality, willingness to repeat the colonoscopy, adenoma detection rate, and polyp detection rate. RESULTS: Five hundred two patients were enrolled. The rates of adequate bowel preparation (80.0% vs 60.3%, P < 0.001; 84.4% vs 60.3%, P < 0.001) and the total Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) scores (6.90 ± 1.28 vs 6.00 ± 1.61, P < 0.001; 7.03 ± 1.24 vs 6.00 ± 1.61, P < 0.01) in the 4L-PEG+1d-Lin group and the 3L-PEG+3d-Lin group were superior to that in the 4L-PEG group. Compared with the 4L-PEG group, the 4L-PEG+1d-Lin group (66.7% vs 81.7%, P = 0.008) and the 3L-PEG+3d-Lin group (75.0% vs 81.7%, P = 0.224) had a lower percentage of mild adverse events. No statistically significant difference in willingness to repeat the colonoscopy, sleep quality, polyp detection rate, or adenoma detection rate was observed among groups. DISCUSSION: PEG combined with linaclotide might be an effective method for bowel preparation before colonoscopy in patients with CC.